If the model realized at scale repeatedly results in the same or similar effects, maybe there is something wrong with the model.
(Be those inherent mechanical flaws, flaws of ignoring parts of human nature, flaws of a model designed to work in a vacuum, or flaws of intricate and fragile necessary rules)
I hold similar views(obviously), but I find something comforting in it. Like, rather than living in a ruined paradise lost by us or our parents, we live in a complicated world where we share the work of trying to make something better with our ancestors.
(Of course, we also have to figure out how to do that, and, in a complicated world, that can be challenging and lead to conflict)
More likely it was when they were kids and without adult responsibilities, or narrow/whitewashed views of the past(as from stories and shows from before their birth)
You are so wound up in a rote shutting down of OP that you aren’t listening.
One can be antisemitic and not be a nazi. The pogroms that harried my ancestors were not practiced by nazis. The expulsions of Jews from various countries over the centuries were not practiced by nazis. The “no blacks, no dogs, no Jews” signs my grandfather saw were not put up by nazis.
Antisemitism is a thing we’ve been living with for a long, long time. I would appreciate it if you didn’t condescend to tell us how you know better about who does or can hate us.
The current situation is certainly making that clear.
It’s an uncomfortable time, certainly. The left seems to think we’re monsters, and the right has a weird fetishisation thing going on. Neither one feels good, and it ends up feeling very isolating.
A nazi is an antisemite, but an antisemite is not necessarily a Nazi. Downpunxx never used the word “Nazi”, and the two are not the same. Plenty of non-nazis over the years have persecuted or tried to kill us. Hitler didn’t invent the idea.
You gave a perfectly reasonable answer to the question in eight words. No evasion.
Just lie then
Not an ideal in forming relationships. Honestly, as much of a train wreck as his response was, at least it gave some useful information to the person he would potentially be dating.
You’ve presumably had conversations with your wife, though, where you shared, and she wasn’t into it. I dunno, at the least you were, perhaps, honest about not wanting to (or not being comfortable with) sharing.
Furthermore, it’s a song and she asked. No one is being subjected to anything. No one has to listen to the song named, or, if they do, even finish the song.
Some of it is distrust of young people. Some of it is a slavish devotion to “the rules” or “the way it’s always been I’ve always known it to be”.
I don’t get the former, and I’m doing my best to never settle for “the rules” as an answer without those rules being grounded and justifiable.
I am not a bit, but I might be a cat
It’s not like C-level folks aren’t cashing in well before their companies are profitable. They put on executive clothes and live executive lifestyles, either because it’s what they want or because it’s part of the theatre put on for investors.
I feel confident in the assumption that most users wouldn’t begrudge a company a modest profit off of the content they produce uncompensated on their sites. But it’s an unwritten social contract, and therefore ripe for abuse.
Some of it is born of users not realizing the value of what they give to the corporations— their data for mining, their engagement for attracting and maintaining even more users to the site. Some of it is born of the explicit contracts being written solely by one side(the execs).
Dropout (via Sam) also explicitly stated around the time Netflix was rumbling about cracking down on account sharing that they’re cool with it. So if you can afford to pay for the subscription, that’s great – it helps support some fantastic content and the people who make it. If you can’t afford to pay, but have a friend or family member who has it and is willing to share(or are the person in the position to share), that’s also good.
Maybe it’s more than a lot of noise
He realized he needed to make a push in the press, so he resorted to the only way he apparently knows how to communicate: lying.
I already had it mulling in my head privately, but this shit conches it for me: spez has to go. He broke community trust, and continues to more and more as this thing drags out.
It sounds like he wants to replace that “landed gentry” with a landed gentry loyal to him.
Very good and very Democratic. Stable genius level.
Most, I would wager, weren’t motivated to do it for Reddit. They were motivated to do it for their communities that happened to be on the site.
Moderation— particularly volunteer based moderation— tends to be about the bonds moderators have and develop with the users they interact with every day. Admins are a mixed bag: some of them may have sympathy towards the mods, but ultimately their livelihood is tied to the company line.
A lot of the internet is built on free labor. A lot of that we have been willing to let slide. That willingness ends when the quantum of respect doesn’t get paid for that labor. I don’t know how someone continues moderating on Reddit at this point; barring a big turnaround(and possibly the ouster of current management), it feels like the move should be to migrate their communities elsewhere.
That went from zero to apocalypse very quickly.
I think you’ve been chasing the news dragon too long and too hard. Past a point, it doesn’t make you more informed, just… sadder. More given to misanthropy and despair.
We’re here, and we’re not all bad. Most of us want the same things: health, happiness, love, and camaraderie. We want those things for the people we care about— sometimes more than for ourselves.
The vast, vast majority of us are just people. We get caught up in things, and we forget it sometimes, but that’s a people thing too. And so is helping— when tragedy strikes, or those times we create tragedy, people are also the ones running toward the danger and uncertainty to help save those who cannot save themselves.